PM Research Solar Engine #3

PM Research Solar Engine #3
Flame Licker
Flame Gulper

Whatever you want to call it just a fun engine to run!

Another very impressive demonstration

… but I must admit to being confused by the description

’Flame Licker’ and Flame Gulper’ I get … but where does ‘Solar’ fit-in ?

MichaelG.

yes! that one confused me too, though thats not difficult.........

'Solar or Fueless' engine originally posted in PM metalwork mag in 1961. PDF is available. This one is a flame licker.

Regards Ian.

**LINK**

https://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads/fuel-less-space-engine.33190/#post-371358

If I remember correctly PM list it as a solar engine on their website although I have not looked on there recently.

Puzzling to me but I am easily confused these days (so the Wife tells me).

Nice little runner though and interesting sound.

Edited By V8Eng on 18/10/2022 13:40:25

Edited By V8Eng on 18/10/2022 13:42:50

.

Looks like PMR might have rectified that

**LINK**

https://www.pmmodelengines.com/product-category/solar/solar-engines/

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ but only in part !!

https://www.pmmodelengines.com/?s=flame&post_type=product

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 18/10/2022 14:43:57

Yes, it's a misnomer for this engine.

The US company who makes these made an engine that ran off a parabolic (or like) reflector and was a 'solar' engine. For some reason they named all their non steam engine line of engines 'solar' engines -

**LINK**

Pleeese! Use a screw cap on that flam container or pick it up differently! I cringe every time I see you pick it up by its lid!

Good little engine - one of the better ones I have seen - just needs the flame to be kept in place to stop it slowly ‘walking’ away.

I’ll now go back to my solar - proper solar, more PV going on the roof.

That aluminium cap isn't going anywhere, it's very tight.

That's a ripper! Runs so well for such a simple concept.

.

+1

although I have no idea how [in]efficient it might be … and I suspect the maths would be impossibly difficult.

MichaelG.

Not exactly difficult. In its present form/operation the efficiency is zero.

Thanks Michael.

Well now that you know how utterly crap they are, you can save yourself the pleasure and enjoyment of owning one.

.

Good old Wikipedia to the rescue: **LINK**

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_engine

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ the information we want is include in this free preview of the referenced book:

 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Exploding_Disk_Cannons_Slimemobiles_and/YWocXk0K8hsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 22/10/2022 01:27:54

Blue Heeler,

You may well soak up the empty coplliments from certain posters, but please be aware that compliments provided for ‘grace and favour’ are actually worthless - some, on the forum, seem to be prolific complimenters, for just that purpose.

However, for these ‘impossibly difficult mathematics’ let me demonstrate the ridiculousness of that statement.

EFFICIENCY = WORK DONE divided by the ENERGY INPUT.

Work done can be measured in several ways. It coould be measured mechanically as FORCE X DISTANCE MOVED or it could be measured electrically as VOLTS X AMPS X TIME. Both would be perfectly acceptable and accurate.

However, as I posted, in the form/operation you presented your engine it was doing no work. It was neither providing any force to move any mass, nor providing any electrical energy output. The energy input was a simple function of mass of fuel used multiplied by the energy content, per unit mass, of that fuel

Any mathematician worth his salt would know that zero divided by any number (other than zero) = zero

To convert to a percentage efficiency vale the above result would need to be multiplied by 100, of course (still zero in this particular form/operation).’

(Zero divided by zero is, of course, an indeterminate value as it could be any value between 1 and infinity).

While I actually have little desire to buy a flame licker engine, I would almost certainly make one - not buy one. I am aware that some designs are very poor examples of the type and some even are difficult to actually get running - let alone to do any work. Novelties for the grandchildren is the most likely reason, I suppose? I was going to purchase one of the chinese stirling engine designs, for my Grandson, which could run for as long as an hour, just sitting above a mug of hot water…

I’ll stick with my previous post - in that the example was a ‘good little engine’ - and also my comments. While tight, that lid and can only need to fall apart once to cause a conflagration (being as the flame was still alight on at least one occasion).

Enjoy your (expensive) toy.

I bet your fun at parties.

Edited By Blue Heeler on 22/10/2022 09:39:12

.

Absolute tosh !

Of course it’s doing work, and of course it’s consuming fuel

MichaelG.